3 ms·

> The difference is that those 450 cases at the tesla plant were easily avoidable, if not for the selfish actions of a powerful egomaniac Evidence required. Wi

by 1996 6y ago

> The difference is that those 450 cases at the tesla plant were easily avoidable, if not for the selfish actions of a powerful egomaniac Evidence required. Without counterfactual, the plant seem safer than the county : 4.5% vs 5% as mentioned above. For all we know, they got sick while going to work due to the incidence in the county, and would not have been if they could sleep and eat at the plant. Also, the workers may prefer being paid than on the government dole But all the journalist care is making an incendiary article to present as class warfare what is just plain good sense: eventually, plants will be reopened

temp8964 6y ago
Counterfactual is really important for comparison. Many people may fail to grasp this concept for a fair comparison. The counterfactual of getting infected while go to work at the tesla, is not, staying home and not getting infected. Staying home, you can still get infected (but not getting paid). There are so many reports just compare what observed to a perfection. I don't think journalists wrote those articles are stupid enough to compare reality to a perfection, because they can immediately show some level of sophistications when defending someone they like. I believe this is just a tactic for intentionally biased reporting. Journalists can always control how many data they want to present in their reports.
- bodhiandpysics1 6y ago
  Given how many people argue the dumbest things about this article (like that if we include the January 2020 Covid numbers things would be differrent!) I don't think the issue is intentional stupidity. The journalist has a story, and if they asked the questions about context they wouldn't have a story, so they simply ignore those issues.
  - temp8964 6y ago
    But when they targeted Tesla for the story, they already had an agenda.
pietrovismara 6y ago
Evidence required? Those workers could have stayed at home, weren't they being forced to come to work. This goes beyond the raw numbers, the real issue is that the workers were forced to take the risk. The worst part? Quoting the article: "It had promised they could remain home if they felt uncomfortable returning to the line. The Post reported in late June and July that workers concerned about covid exposure received termination notices after they did not return to work.
- 1996 6y ago
  > Evidence required? Yes. Your are not dispensed from evidence when everything suggest a simpler explanation (Occam's razor) > the real issue is that the workers were forced to take the risk Who forced them? They are free to quit. But by not working they will not get money > "It had promised they could remain home if they felt uncomfortable returning to the line. The Post reported in late June and July that workers concerned about covid exposure received termination notices after they did not return to work Yes, this is not a charity - and if people abuse the provision and stay at home all the time, they are no longer workers, so they are terminated. The journalist just wanted to turn that into a poor vs rich, deforming evidence as needed. I wonder what are your intention by supporting that. I was ready to give you benefit of doubt and assume good intention, then I checked your comment history. In short order, you are: - attacking AirBNB ("A handful of landlords got richer, turists could travel cheaper (not necessarily a good thing overall), but an entire class of citizens got kicked out of the city as now no landlord wants to regularly rent their flat") - attacking people making money with their free software ("Following the recent events, wait until multinational corporation x comes, repackages your software as a managed solution, hosted on their infrastructure and resells it through their channels"), - posting needlessly political comments about reducing waste ("I have an even better way to reduce waste: Let's raise food prices so that no one can afford to eat! No consumption, no waste") So I think you too are out for blood. Maybe you should be reported for repetitively breaking the rules?
  - pietrovismara 6y ago
    You really went out of your way to attack me personally and read my past comments. Please report. While I'm engaging in discussion and as far as I know not breaking any rule, I suspect behavior like yours is way more detrimental to the community. But let the moderators decide.
belval 6y ago
See my edit, but this article is a beautiful example of framing your data to get a specific conclusion from the reader. Show me other businesses so that I can assess if Tesla is worse otherwise this is almost just a "Tesla bad" article.

by 1996 6y ago

temp8964 6y ago

Counterfactual is really important for comparison. Many people may fail to grasp this concept for a fair comparison. The counterfactual of getting infected while go to work at the tesla, is not, staying home and not getting infected. Staying home, you can still get infected (but not getting paid). There are so many reports just compare what observed to a perfection. I don't think journalists wrote those articles are stupid enough to compare reality to a perfection, because they can immediately show some level of sophistications when defending someone they like. I believe this is just a tactic for intentionally biased reporting. Journalists can always control how many data they want to present in their reports.

bodhiandpysics1 6y ago
Given how many people argue the dumbest things about this article (like that if we include the January 2020 Covid numbers things would be differrent!) I don't think the issue is intentional stupidity. The journalist has a story, and if they asked the questions about context they wouldn't have a story, so they simply ignore those issues.
- temp8964 6y ago
  But when they targeted Tesla for the story, they already had an agenda.

pietrovismara 6y ago

Evidence required? Those workers could have stayed at home, weren't they being forced to come to work. This goes beyond the raw numbers, the real issue is that the workers were forced to take the risk. The worst part? Quoting the article: "It had promised they could remain home if they felt uncomfortable returning to the line. The Post reported in late June and July that workers concerned about covid exposure received termination notices after they did not return to work.

1996 6y ago
> Evidence required? Yes. Your are not dispensed from evidence when everything suggest a simpler explanation (Occam's razor) > the real issue is that the workers were forced to take the risk Who forced them? They are free to quit. But by not working they will not get money > "It had promised they could remain home if they felt uncomfortable returning to the line. The Post reported in late June and July that workers concerned about covid exposure received termination notices after they did not return to work Yes, this is not a charity - and if people abuse the provision and stay at home all the time, they are no longer workers, so they are terminated. The journalist just wanted to turn that into a poor vs rich, deforming evidence as needed. I wonder what are your intention by supporting that. I was ready to give you benefit of doubt and assume good intention, then I checked your comment history. In short order, you are: - attacking AirBNB ("A handful of landlords got richer, turists could travel cheaper (not necessarily a good thing overall), but an entire class of citizens got kicked out of the city as now no landlord wants to regularly rent their flat") - attacking people making money with their free software ("Following the recent events, wait until multinational corporation x comes, repackages your software as a managed solution, hosted on their infrastructure and resells it through their channels"), - posting needlessly political comments about reducing waste ("I have an even better way to reduce waste: Let's raise food prices so that no one can afford to eat! No consumption, no waste") So I think you too are out for blood. Maybe you should be reported for repetitively breaking the rules?
- pietrovismara 6y ago
  You really went out of your way to attack me personally and read my past comments. Please report. While I'm engaging in discussion and as far as I know not breaking any rule, I suspect behavior like yours is way more detrimental to the community. But let the moderators decide.

belval 6y ago

See my edit, but this article is a beautiful example of framing your data to get a specific conclusion from the reader. Show me other businesses so that I can assess if Tesla is worse otherwise this is almost just a "Tesla bad" article.